Breaking news: Rauch traded, Guzman re-signed

On the same day, the Nationals determined the futures of their two most valuable veterans. They traded closer Jon Rauch to Arizona and they signed all-star shortstop Cristian Guzman to a two-year contract extension, keeping him with the team through 2010. UPDATE: Guzman reports that the deal is worth $16 million (which is just $800,000 less than they paid for him over four years when he originally signed in the fall of 2004).

In exchange for Rauch, Washington acquired prospect Emilio Bonifacio, whom the team clearly now identifies as its second baseman of the future. Bonifacio will report initially to Class AAA Columbus. He had entered the season as Arizona's No. 6 prospect, according to Baseball American. To fill Rauch's roster spot, Washington recalled pitcher Garrett Mock from Class AAA Columbus.

Rauch's contract secures him for Arizona through next year, when he'll make $2 million. He also has a $2.9 option for 2010. This season, Rauch moved into the closer's role because of repeated health problems of Chad Cordero. And in that role, Rauch became the team's most reliable bullpen arm. In 48 games before the trade, Rauch was 4-2 with 17 saves and a 2.98 ERA. He had been with this franchise even before its move to DC, joining the club in a July 2004 trade with the Chicago White Sox.

Guzman, meanwhile, was Washington's lone all-star representative this year. (Rauch had been the only other to merit much consideration.) He had been in the final year of a four-year, $16.8 million deal, the first three years of which had been marred by underperformance. Only this year has Guzman become the shortstop Washington always hoped he would be, batting .310 with 129 hits. Chances are, Guzman and Bonifacio will be next year's middle infielders. Guzman's agent, Stanley King, said today that Guzman would like to finish his career in DC.

As for Bonifacio, he has just 35 career major league at bats -- good for a .200 average. Washington's team release about the trade identifies Bonifacio as somebody who was the "potential to develop into a solid leadoff hitter and outstanding defensive second baseman." This year in the minors, with Class AAA Tuscon, Bonifacio was batting .302 with one home run and a .348 on-base percentage.

Probably a good trade, although I'm sorry to see Rauch go. I'd like to know how much they're paying Guzman. I have to say they should be prepared to trade him in the next year, because I think he's about to eat his way out of being a shortstop and his bat isn't good enough anywhere else. Still, I think these are good moves, small steps down the path.

"I am happy we went out and got a good reliever. I didnt want to see Boni go but I think this will workout pretty good for the D-backs."

"I really hate to see Bonifacio go, but we desperately need BP help."

Replying to a Nats fan asking for details, "One thing for sure...He's the fastest man on earth. Other than that......Time will tell how well he'll do in the Majors."

"Losing Bonifaco is immaterial as he can't hit major league pitching and while we won't re-sign O-Dog for $8 or $9 million this winter (nor should we) versus his $6.2 million this year, we have lots of potential 2nd basemen."

Poor return. The guy has a .735 OPS in AAA, and for all the talk about his speed, he's only stealing at a 68% clip. If Rauch was going to be a free agent, that would be one thing, but he's locked up through 2010. Here's to hoping Rizzo knows something the numbers don't show.

Seems to me that they ought to have gotten more than a light hitting prospect for Rauch. After all, a lot of contending teams like the Brewers are begging for a closer like Rauch and the Brewers farm system is packed with good prospects.

Give Hanrahan the ball at the end of games. Can Luis "Gasoline Alley" Ayala be the next reliever traded? Hopefully this trade opens the door to the eventual and expedited jettisoning of FLop. Re-signing Guzzie a good move for two reasons - if the Nats keep him it will stabilize the middle infield and he may be a more attractive trade option now that his contract has been extended allowing for cost-certainty.

An outstanding pickup for Arizona's pen at a small cost. Rauch probably won't close initially, but he can be a fallback if Brandon Lyon continues to struggle. He'll upgrade the eighth inning and push Tony Pena and Chad Qualls back to the sixth and seventh innings. Theoretically, it gives the Diamondbacks one of the best setup corps in baseball. Bonifacio wasn't going to be the answer at second base next year if Orlando Hudson leaves, so it's no problem giving him up in this one, particularly with Rauch under control through 2010 ($2 million in 2009, $2.9 million option in 2010). Jul. 22 - 5:25 pm et

Gulp. Deep breath - I'm on board with the "I trust Rizzo's knowledge of the D-backs system," but I'm really worried about a guy who's never had a career .340 OBP in six years of minor league ball - batting eye develops late, but where some folks are seeing Nook, I see Endy Chavez - he might have slap power to leg out doubles and the occassional triple, but if he doesn't get on base at at least a .350-.360 clip, all the speed in the world won't make a difference. I'm not really concerned about power if he's going to hit leadoff, but I do worry about getting on base.

That said, I think it's symptomatic of what some of you guys were saying - Rauch is a good setup man for a good team and he was never going to get more valuable than he was right now, so I'm happy to make a deal - I just hope E-Bone can develop a batting eye.

I like the idea here for sure. Rauch was a luxury on this team. Middle Infield is what we need. If this the best guy.....how would we know? It is Jimbo's job to know, let us hope many of us are wrong about how poor a GM he is.

SO, THE TEAM IS IN SF, I TRADE AWAY MY CLOSER A DAY AFTER LEAVING MANNY SHORTHANDED IN ATL... WHO AM I GOING TO CALL UP? EH, FORGET IT, I'LL JUST LEAVE THINGS BE. WHAT DOES MANNY NEED ANOTHER PLAYER FOR?

Not a fan of this trade. Seems like we gave up a workhorse closer with good numbers and who can setup or close depending on the situation with a GREAT contract for a lighthitting 2nd baseman prospect who hasn't been able to hit major league pitching in two callups yet, nor is lighting it up in AAA. damn, i thought we'd get more for him.

Hanrahan closes, and we bring up Sanches or maybe even Zinicola or Warden to do setup work and add to the bullpen. We can 60-day DL Chico or Pena to clear the roster spot for someone. Next move after that is to trade/release/DFA one of our catchers to bring up another bullpen arm.

Too early. Rauch was a high-demand player and Bowden flipped him for a prospect who, if he plays to his best projection, would still be right around league average. You fell like he could have gotten more. On the good side, Kasten gets to dump one the few remaining 1M+ earners on the club. Go $tan!

e, the most important stat you cited in the Reyes-Bonaficio comparison is "Reyes - four years/Bonaficio - six years" Reyes didn't start hitting for power until his second year in MLB because he was 20 in his first big-league year. His first three MLB years were the last three years Bonaficio just had. At 23, Reyes was .300/.354/.487(!!) in MLB. Bonaficio at the same age was .302/.348/.387 in AAA - so let's hold off on the "he's Reyes" stuff - he's Reyes minus the power, which makes him like any other slap-hitting, defense-first MI guy. He might develop, and I sure hope he does, but for my money, except for Hanley Ramirez, Reyes is the second-best shortstop in MLB.

What I want to know is, all of the posters that earlier this season thought the Nats did a TERRIBLE job of not trading Cordero last year, noting that the overworked bullpen was due to amass a serious injury ... are you for or against the Rauch trade? Is this the same kind of scenario as last season?

A reliever that's thrown a TON of innings in the past couple of seasons, has a history of injury, closing for a team that has no chance of winning right now, traded for a AAA-prospect that plays a good 2B, has tons of speed, and may or may not hit for a decent average in the bigs. Good or bad?

While I approve of re-signing Guzman, the speculated $8 mil per year is FISCAL INSANITY. Earlier, I wrote that with Guzman under contract for two additional years it might make it easier for the Nats to trade him because the buying team would have cost certainty. But if the $8 million figure is true, this another unmovable Meat Loaf contract. Whatever happened to Guzie's agent alluding that his client might give the team a hometown discount?

In Rizzo we trust. We shall see. Potentially, Rausch, with an option in 2010 would opt out and be under control through 2009. I'm not sure about the young man from AZ, but alas, now was the time to trade Rausch.

You will be missed Wookie. How does this hurt the Nats off-season Basketball team? Looks like we need a C (but as long as Willie Harris is running the point, do you really need 4 other players?)

"Is Arizona the new Cincinnati? Bowden used to love dealing for players on his old team (Austin Kearns, Willy Mo Pena, Jose Guillen, Ryan Wagner, etc., etc., etc.). Now it's Asst. GM Mike Rizzo, the former Director of Scouting with the Diamondbacks, grabbing from his old team. Washington previously acquired Matt Chico and minor leaguer Garret Mock from Arizona for Livan Hernandez."

Ladson just confirmed that the Nats are going to pay Guzman $8 million per on his new contract. So, that means he's going to get paid twice his current salary for playing 2 1/3 years of his current four-year contract? Sign me up, JimBow.

According to the Washington Times, the Nationals signed shortstop Cristian Guzman to a two-year extension today for a reasonable $16MM. It's a discount both in years and amount, based on comparable deals for shortstops. Nice signing by the Nationals.

Doesn't seem that the Nats got much for Rausch. You would think they'd get a major-league ready player over a prospect.

And as others have said, they overpaid Guzzie. Exactly who were they competing against for his services? Reminds me of the D'mitri Young signing last year. I would rather have seen the $$$ go to Orlando Hudson in the offseason, and pick up someone else at SS if Guzzie had left.

while i am not a red sox apologist, i wholeheartedly agree with what GM theo epstein once said about contract signings. epstein said that a contract is not only signed for the player, but also for the needs of the team in the present and future. what happens if guzman reprises 2006 and 2007 when he only played 46 games due to injury? then you have an unmovable eight million dollars per season clogging your payroll and limiting your personnel flexibility. i like what guzzie brings to the nats, but there is no way i would have signed a 30-year-old shortstop with a history of injuries to that kind of money. may he be injury-free for the duration of his extension.

Personally, I would rather have seen Guzman traded. But the contract, relative to what other free agent SS have signed over the last couple years is pretty good.

Guzman could & would have received a lengthier contract for more money/yr if he had gone to free agency. The pool of available SS's in 2009 is what some would call crappy. The Nats options were to overpay for an established SS (moreso than than what Goose will make) or sign a retread to a one year deal.

Getting Bonifacio probably means they'll pass on Hudson, but the Cubs or someone else would have outbid them there, anyway, in all likelihood. Rauch was not part of the long term here--no middle reliever is ever long term, and very few closers are.
I'd like to see them get (and keep) somebody who can hit .300, but that's just me.

Re-signing Guzman doesn't really move the cheap/not cheap needle for me. They may be cheap, but they're not completely stupid. They'll do what they have to do to prevent a complete revolt so they can still sell some tickets. But will they do what they have to do to win? Different story...

@SF Fan - By spending $8 million on Guzie -the Lerners now feel they don't have to spend anymore on the draft or free agents in the offseason. Come on now. Can't you see the sinister evil plot of cheapness here.

I will be curious to see what the O's can get for Sherrill. So I am guessing here that we are probably stuck with Lopez and Lo Duca for the season. I expected that they would be traded as part of a package.

Here's another thing to consider - with the recall of Mock to replace Rauch, does that move Bergmann to the BP? I hope not, because he seems a much better fit as a #4SP than he has been as a long-middle inning reliever. I'm also going on the record that the Rauch-Bonaficio trade was decent, but we probably got "short-sheeted".

I think I guesstimated Guzman would get at least 3 years $20 million on the open market, so this looks a bit front loaded but not out of line.

Rauch deal - I'm guessing they decided they were going to move Rauch for a middle infielder, and this was the best prospect they got back. Also, the progress towards signing Guzman probably made them look for 2d base rather than SS. Hopefully, the .348 will be maintained or improved. Otherwise, Bonifacio may have to learn to steal first. OBP is the most important skill for a lead off hitter.

So, does this mean we stand pat for next year and go with 2 Flores, 3 Johnson, 4 Bonifacio, 5 Zimmerman, 6 Guzman, 7 Dukes, 8 Milledge, and 9 Kearns?

"was hoping we'd be able to pull off a bit more for Bonifacio, but still satisfied with the bullpen help" formerly Seton Hall Snake Pit. The newer simpler version.by AJforAZ on Jul 22, 2008 5:47 PM EDT

"Ummm, who wants to break the bad news to them? ;)"

"Oh, I'd just let them work it out on their own"

"Well, I'm a bit nervous,simply because as one of the posters at FederalBaseball noted, Mike Rizzo KNOWS our farm system well.... I'm wondering whether he sees something that nobody else does?"

"He was signed by us out of the Dominican in 2001, IIRC."

"When he was 16."

The Diamondbacks trade Emilio Bonifacio"

"Great trade! Who'd we get?"

"Anytime you have the chance to get a 6'11, one biscut away from 300 lbs., gold medal winner, with a neck tatoo. Well.....that's just a move you have to make and its as simple as that. Looking forward to the Raunch era and I like the move."

I don't love either move. $8 million seems a tad high for Guzman. He's having a good year but will he duplicate these numbers for the next two? I have my doubts. To be fair, he might be a reasonable stop-gap at short until we develop one of our own. I thought we would get more for Rauch. As badly as we need IF help, I would have thought we could do better than this. I was one of those hoping for the signing of Orlando Hudson. That's unlikely to happen now. I hope that Bonifacio (sp?) can hit and I trust Rizzo to know his former players. But I'm underwhelmed, at this point.

If he keeps up this kind of production, $8 million a year is about right. He's at least on par (I think better) with Julio Lugo who makes $9 mil/year and i'd call him half a valuable as Michael Young who makes $15 mil/year. And his deal will pale in comparison to some of the new one's these young SS's will get.

Can we ship FLop or Ronnie for anything before the deadline, please? Move Wee Wee to 2B one Lastings is back. We need to move Estrada too.

And Hanrahan has close stuff if he controls the fastball. I like today's moves a lot.

glad to see guzman resigned. fair deal. worth the extra money to have the flexibility in two years.

rauch was great and all but we are loaded in the minors with pitching. replacing a closer on a team that gets 60 wins isn't my primary concern. start working in the young guys and we'll find someone soon enough.

closers with a 2.98 era, 17 saves anda 4-2 rcord usually bring back more than just a minor league 2nd baseman. hes a pitcher for gods sake. you tellin me he wasnt worth at least 2 maybe 3 players to a contender.
im not sayin the 2nd baseman aint gonna be good. who knows. im just sayin, az fleeced the nats. but whats new.

I'd have preferred to get more for Rauch, since he was perhaps our most tradeable commodity. But there's really no way of knowing how Bonafacio will turn out. As for the Guzman signing, I say good for him. He saved his best year for his contract year, and he deserves it. Besides, I'd rather not be looking for a shortstop this offseason in addition to all the other holes that need to be filled. But putting up this much money for Guzman says to me that slot or no slot, they absolutely MUST sign Crow, or I'm going to change my name to Lerners Are Cheap!

Guzman's stock went up with that All-Star performance. His fielding was getting a lot of love from those in the know, and playing 3rd base for the 1st time in Yankee stadium against that batting order! If all the balls were hit to him instead of 1/10th to Uggala, the NL would've won! I'm very happy. Manny gives us such an insider's view of the talent in the Dominican, and Mike Rizzo of the talent in the D'back organization, I'm feeling good. Relief pitching is the least reliable commodity in baseball. We just got a 23 year old 2d basemen who's MLB ready except for plate discipline for a 30 year old reliever. Like Corey says, you got to give something to get something.

Also, I kind of like the idea of giving Mock a shot out of the pen. One of the things not talked about in our scouting discussions earlier is the idea that, sometimes, a failed number four starter can become an effective long reliever. Perhaps, instead of back-of-the-rotation starters, we're developing a great core of relievers.

My criticisms of Bowden and the Lerners are as follows: (1) they won't pay what it takes to build the team, (2) they're overpaying Guzman, (3) Bowden demands too much in return for trades so we never get any players for our veterans and, finally, (4) how could they trade Rauch for a guy I never heard of.

If I have it correctly, FLop is eligible for free agency in 2009 (gudby, seeya). The teams' question is whether Bonaficio, Bergolla, or Rogelstad can step up from the minors next year? If not, we still have Belly under contract for '09, and we can hopefully offer Harris a deal as well.

BIM, you should see the Nats' email alert to fans on these 2 transactions--it is a (well-earned) slap in Felipe's face. It states that the Nats "set in motion their double play combination of the future" today by re-signing Guz and trading for Bonifacio. I wonder if JimBo or Stan reviews these emails before PR/marketing sends them out?

its like feast or famine for bowden. he either asks for a kins ransom and blows it like soriano or he gives away a top player for nuthin. when are they gonna get rid of bowden. please give him away. the guy is such a loser.

@Cil: FLop is a decent ballplayer, but has been "copping a 'tude" for over a year; If he is truly a FA at the end of 2008, oh, well in my book. CHarlan hasn't pinpointed him as a locker-room problem, but I can't believe he has been a joy to be around either.

For someone that's on the hotseat, Bowden didn't pull of any wonders with the Rauch trade. I would have rather held onto Rauch and pursue Hudson in the off-season. Surprised he hasn't pulled of a Dunn deal yet. If not that the best two deals he and the Lerners need to focus on, are signing Texiera and a Number 1 pitcher to set the tone of a more than mediocre rotation. I'd like to see Hudson added and deal with the glut at the catcher position.

Let me clarify my previous post. I would have rather received something more in return than what we got in the Rauch deal. I'm good with the idea of trading him, but I think we could have gotten more had we waited till closer to the deadline. I stand by the most pressing needs are a fearful power bat and an Ace of the staff. Thats a lot to request but two key acquisitions that HAVE to be made to become more respectable.

The proof will be in the pudding. The idea of the trade is a fine one, but it depends on what kind of player Bonifacio turns out to be. Based on his meager achievements to date, I think the Nats probably could have gotten more/better in return for Rauch.

That said, it's worth noting an old baseball axiom. A team is measured by its strength up the middle. With Flores and Guzman, we have two decent players, but we lacked quality in the other two slots. We're still looking for a centerfielder. However, if Bonifacio claims the 2nd base job, hits .270, draws walks, runs the bases, and plays strong defense, we'll be 3/4 of the way. That's a lot of ifs. Right now, I'd say it's over-optimistic, but I'll certainly be in the kid's corner.

We didn't have a decent bullpen before the trade, and the Nats aren't good enough to be worrying about a closer yet. So, as I wrote above -- the idea of the trade is a fine one. Clearly, Rizzo is rolling the dice on this kid. I can't offer any more of an opinion than that because I've never seen him play. We'll just have to wait and see.

Bonifacio is an impatient slap hitter who projects for zero power. He will never have a high enough OBP to put him at the top of the order so the trade is for a bottom of the order hitter whose entire value is based on carrying a decent average and stealing bases. The good news is that he is good with the glove and is probably an upgrade over Lopez right now.